From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 16:36:56 GMT
Hello Ian / Platt:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?
> Platt had said pointedly:
> > [Quote] For example, my hard-nosed, no-nonsense intellect tells me it
would
> > be a grievous error to remove from a vital, free society the idea that a
> > Creator endows certain inalienable rights on every person -- like life,
> > liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to coin a phrase). [Unquote]
>
> Ian said, with a jaunty air, yet thoughtfully:
> > I say
> > I absolutely agree it would be unwise to remove the idea that those
rights
> > are "natural human rights", learned by generations of catastrophic
mistakes
> > throughout history, but why does their value depend on the supernatural
> > idea that they are valid rights simply because your Creator created
them. I
> > genuinely have no wish to insult your spiritual beliefs, but why let
them
> > get in the way of a top class idea like human rights ? It's almost like
you
> > subscribe to the "opiate of the people" viewpoint, like the masses are
> > somehow too dim to understand anything but a simplistic fairy story -
don't
> > want them asking too many awkward questions, give 'em religion, etc. I
find
> > that insulting.
>
Platt replied with restrained dignity:
> Many people would find it insulting that you characterize their religious
> belief as a "fairy story." As for human rights, I think it's better to
> have them sanctioned by a higher power than by men or majorities who, for
> whatever excuse, can revoke them "in the public interest."
>
> But, I could be wrong. My hope was that this group could reconcile
> religious belief with intellect to come up with some guiding moral
> principles that would help mend the current social divide until the MOQ
> becomes more widely accepted. To summarily reject those who believe in a
> Creator doesn't seem helpful toward that end.
>
mel, squeaked from his place in the corner::
In some ways it seems almost upside down to discuss
WHERE the moral principles originate, when the more
important point is that extant moral principles are not
respected, other people are not respected, and the
result of the failure socially and biologically, not to
mention intellectually results in direct justifications
of violence.
examples: Socially - fundamentalist organizations
of any stripe, most visibly now, regard their own as
possessing the truth and everyone else as unworthy.
"Liberal" writers have no respect for opposition.
"Conservative" wirters have no respect for opposition.
(both seem rather to prefer the "rhino-ectomy to spite
the face" approach to an alternative of compromise.)
Biologically, it is the "objectification" of another, a very
pointed lack of respect for the Quality of another, as
lesser that allows battery, intimidation, and killing.
Intellectually, the ease of ridicule that creeps into the
treatment of others in print. Chomsky of Friedman,
ourselves to each other, myself of Chomsky,
everyone of Bush, all betray a similar though more subtle
"violence" through lack of respect.
...it's the diminution...
RE: the matter of the Opiate of fairy story faith...
People exist at all levels of sophistication and it
is best that there are levels by which they are all
reached. (Or by which they can manage in life...)
As a child is "better" informed with simple explanations,
which hopefully are revised and made more complex
and complete through life, so too are some people
who for whatever reason "stall" at a certain stage of
their development.
If my NASCAR Billy-Bob neighbor needs to picture a
lightening throwing old bearded white guy to keep
from beating his wife, then -- it works.
If the woman on the block behind finds refuge in
an oceanic consciousness that brings compassion
then good on 'er.
Different levels of sophistication are why this is such
a small group...
The beauty of MoQ seems to me that the nature of
morality becomes interpenetrative to all existence and
indivisible from it...inescapable, always shining in your
eyes. hmmmm
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 09 2004 - 22:08:55 GMT